bureniafandomcom-20200215-history
User talk:Ooswesthoesbes/Gramär ankélot'apcanski
Škškom. Neprónùsiàtsibilìtsia. :P 4kant,6FRÅGOR??? 09:30, October 19, 2013 (UTC) :Ságo dhouw :o /'ʃk̩ʃkɔm/ → syllabic consonants è :P --OuWTB 09:34, October 19, 2013 (UTC) ::Syllabic k :o Never seen that before :o Not sure whether itś even possible :P 4kant,6FRÅGOR??? 09:36, October 19, 2013 (UTC) :::http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllabic_consonant#Other_languages - You need to get rid of your Indo-European glasses :o --OuWTB 09:40, October 19, 2013 (UTC) ::::However, it is not clear how one would define a syllable or a syllabic nucleus in such cases, '''and it is therefore not clear whether any of these consonants should be considered syllabic.' :P 4kant,6FRÅGOR??? 09:43, October 19, 2013 (UTC) :::::I ain't talking bout consideration here, cuz that's something for grammarians :P Purely talking about linguistics: is there a very short vowel (yes), then it's syllabic :P --OuWTB 09:50, October 19, 2013 (UTC) :::::: :o 4kant,6FRÅGOR??? 09:53, October 19, 2013 (UTC) Do "lania", "låp", "bòrdis" and "skùold" have defined meanings? If so, what do they mean? :P --QytokantFRÅGOR??? 11:02, May 11, 2014 (UTC) :Are you patronizing me? :o --OuWTB 15:31, May 11, 2014 (UTC) ::No, I'm just asking a question :o --QytokantFRÅGOR??? 17:26, May 11, 2014 (UTC) :::Why are you asking me this question though? :o --OuWTB 05:12, May 12, 2014 (UTC) ::::I am asking this question out of mere curiosity :o --QytokantFRÅGOR??? 11:43, May 12, 2014 (UTC) :::::Then I will soon provide you with an answer :o --OuWTB 16:00, May 12, 2014 (UTC) ::::::Is it possible for me to, without in any way offending you and the Ankélo'tapcatâle, conclude that, at the moment at which my question was asked, the meanings of those words had not yet been defined? :o --QytokantFRÅGOR??? 17:24, May 12, 2014 (UTC) :::::::It is possible, but not true :o If you'd use your imagination you'd been able to define some of the words yourself :P "lania" (area), "låp" (gun), "bòrdis" (table), and "skùold" (seat). --OuWTB 08:56, May 13, 2014 (UTC) ::::::::"Låp" and "skùold" reminded me more of "loppa" and "skuld" respectively :P I suppose not all Burenian words have similar Swedish cognates :P --QytokantFRÅGOR??? 16:56, May 13, 2014 (UTC) :::::::::I suppose not :o --OuWTB 03:10, May 14, 2014 (UTC) ::::::::::But "cassa" and "hus" áre obvious cognates though, just like "xúca" and "hund" :P --QytokantFRÅGOR??? 05:39, May 14, 2014 (UTC) :::::::::::I don't see how ''càssa can be a cognate to hus while xudž would be a cognate to hund. How would the different correlate to h-'' be explicable (except for maybe the k-ḱ theory :P), as well as the loss of a nasal with nasalizing the vowel (!''xuñdž)? Also, if Burenian and Swedish were related, Burenian would be a distant relative to the entire Proto-Indo-European family, resulting in the word xudž to be more likely to come from the root instead of an inflected form such as the Germanic descendant, thus from *ḱwṓ, which would be more likely to result in a form like !cwö or perhaps, though less likely, !xwö. --OuWTB 15:16, May 14, 2014 (UTC) ::::::::::::Let's assume that there was a distinction between k and ḱ, even in Proto-Nostratic (assuming the Nostratic theory is true, and that Burenian is a Nostratic language, I doubt it's IE :P). Then the word for "dog" might be derived from something like *ḱwō-dja, whatever *-dja may have meant, and then it makes perfect sense. Now the next challenge is to make Hungarian kutya fit with this theory as well :P --QytokantFRÅGOR??? 16:46, May 14, 2014 (UTC) :::::::::::::I tend to disagree.. How would a labialized palatalized plosive become a plain velar fricative? That's not a logical sound change :P --OuWTB 10:20, May 15, 2014 (UTC) ::::::::::::::I might have ignored some sound changes to PIE :P --QytokantFRÅGOR??? 13:56, May 15, 2014 (UTC) :::::::::::::::Hahaha :P --OuWTB 05:16, May 16, 2014 (UTC) ::::::::::::::::So, to summarise: ::::::::::::::::*PIE: *ḱwṓ ::::::::::::::::*Hungarian: kutya ::::::::::::::::*Proto-Burenian: something like *xúɟa ::::::::::::::::*Proto-Nostratic: *Kúca, in which *K is some dorsal consonant. ::::::::::::::::Any comments on this? :P --QytokantFRÅGOR??? 05:36, May 16, 2014 (UTC) :::::::::::::::::Yes. The -ž ending on xudž is a regular voicing of the standard ending -š. The -ɟ- phoneme makes no sense :P --OuWTB 17:18, May 16, 2014 (UTC) ::::::::::::::::::Let's then assume both PIE and Ankélot'apcadijålekt to be takavíhki :o --QytokantFRÅGOR??? 18:00, May 16, 2014 (UTC) :::::::::::::::::::Let's assume that takavíhkiness was not inherited, thus making Uškárdijålekt takavíhki :o --OuWTB 09:26, May 17, 2014 (UTC) ::::::::::::::::::::Because Anka didn't inherit its takavíhkiness, Uxykascardijålekt is takavíhki? That makes no sense at all :| --QytokantFRÅGOR??? 11:50, May 17, 2014 (UTC) :::::::::::::::::::::Tsssss... :P --OuWTB 16:34, May 17, 2014 (UTC) ::::::::::::::::::::::Anyway. Here's my rekʷestruḱon for "house": ::::::::::::::::::::::*PIE: je ne sais pas ::::::::::::::::::::::*Hungarian: ház ::::::::::::::::::::::*Proto-Burenian: something like *càssa ::::::::::::::::::::::*Proto-Nostratic: K2àssa, in which K2 is some dorsal consonant, but probably not the same as above :P ::::::::::::::::::::::Comments? :P --QytokantFRÅGOR??? 21:35, May 17, 2014 (UTC) :::::::::::::::::::::::Hahaha, sounds good :P --OuWTB 10:54, May 18, 2014 (UTC) ::::::::::::::::::::::::Your turn: reconstruct K1 and K2 :P --QytokantFRÅGOR??? 12:29, May 18, 2014 (UTC) :::::::::::::::::::::::::K¹ will probably be some kind of plain k or velarized kˠ, while k² will perhaps be palatalized, like c or kʲ :o --OuWTB 09:48, May 19, 2014 (UTC) ::::::::::::::::::::::::::Not sure how velarisation becomes palatalisation, but we'd already assumed PIE to be takavíhki so let's assume that it makes sense :P --QytokantFRÅGOR??? 13:00, May 19, 2014 (UTC) :::::::::::::::::::::::::::Well, the PIE consonant /ḱ/ (K¹) is known to have been palatalized (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_language#Consonants) by some scholars, yet others say /ḱ/ was plain velar, while /k/ was actually /q/. Would be nice to mess around with that :P --OuWTB 12:45, May 20, 2014 (UTC) ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Mayhaps that does make sense :o Also do you think Chvarqvian might be a Nostratic language as well? :P --QytokantFRÅGOR??? 13:19, May 20, 2014 (UTC) :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::There is a possibility :o --OuWTB 18:04, May 20, 2014 (UTC) ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::The grammar does however seem to be rather different though :o --QytokantFRÅGOR??? 19:19, May 20, 2014 (UTC) :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Maybe it is a mixed or creole variant of the Nostratic languages :o --OuWTB 03:15, May 21, 2014 (UTC) ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Nostratic and some highly inflecting ergative language? :o --QytokantFRÅGOR??? 05:43, May 21, 2014 (UTC) :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Like the non-Indo-European and non-Sino-Tibetan substrate in Báriázi? :o --OuWTB 14:38, May 21, 2014 (UTC) ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Maÿȟaps :P --QytokantFRÅGOR??? 05:34, May 22, 2014 (UTC) :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::It's getting more complicated by the day :P --OuWTB 07:25, May 22, 2014 (UTC) ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::But it's not yet too complicated though :o --QytokantFRÅGOR??? 14:01, May 22, 2014 (UTC) :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Of course not :P --OuWTB 11:14, May 23, 2014 (UTC)